Oz, pretty pointless arguing what might or might not have been the result if someone in history had done something differently.
PAF.
I'll give you a couple of examples of why I am going to discontinue engaging with you. I explained that I would, and why.
You show a staggering lack of understanding of basic economics
If I do, it is not because of the justification you give. At no point did I argue that dismantling Workchoices would NOT cost jobs. It may well do. The only thing I said in relation to that was that the majority of aussis don't like Workchoices, and seem to be prepared to wear the consequences of it's dismantling. People of your ilk rarely seem to grasp the whole concept of "it's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees". I realise it's an abstract concept about human dignity, and does not have a 'monetary value', and is therefor lost on 'staunch' types such as yourself.
You then go on to confuse my comments about intellectual rigour with what the government is doing. I would have no problem with you calling into question what the government is spending money on, setting out your reasoning, and offering an alternative. Confusing the issue with straw man argument leads me to believe that my first instinct was correct, and that you are incapable of interesting me in further exchanges. It's not the gravity of the economic situation that I find "school-yard", it's your ability and style of arguing. Is that clear?
Finally, I am not an apologist for the Rudd government. I believe they are making some mistakes. But the Lib side of politics arguing that a conservative government wouldn't be spending it's way into a deficit is, well, disingenuous at best. Regardless of your economic 'school', external credit restraints and demand drivers are limiting the governments monetary control, necessitating increased fiscal stimulus. That PAF, is economics 101.